Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Holt v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2007Holt, supra, 675 A.2d at 481 (“Once the police make a lawful arrest, they may search the arrestee’s person and the area within his immediate control, in order to prevent the arrestee from gaining possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.”). 6 In short, the trial court properly denied Mr. Howard’s motion to suppress evidence, and the evidence was sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to convict him of unlawful possession of a controlled substance (marijuana). 2007Holt, supra, 675 A.2d at 481 (“Once the police make a lawful arrest, they may search the arrestee’s person and the area within his immediate control, in order to prevent the arrestee from gaining possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.”). 6 In short, the trial court properly denied Mr. Howard’s motion to suppress evidence, and the evidence was sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to convict him of unlawful possession of a controlled substance (marijuana). | 2 | 2 |
Howard University v. Bestgreen1 sentence1993Howard Univ. v. Best, 484 A.2d 958, 985 (D.C.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Nickens v. Labor Agency of Metropolitan Washingtongreen2 sentences1993Washington, 600 A.2d 813, 819-20 (D.C.1991), there was no evidence from which the jury reasonably could have found that either Newman or Dr. Nichols acted maliciously or for their own benefit in firing Baten, id. at 820 ; 9 hence Howard’s motion for a directed verdict on the count of intentional interference with contractual relations was properly granted. 1993Washington, 600 A.2d 813, 819-20 (D.C.1991), there was no evidence from which the jury reasonably could have found that either Newman or Dr. Nichols acted maliciously or for their own benefit in firing Baten, id. at 820 ; 9 hence Howard’s motion for a directed verdict on the count of intentional interference with contractual relations was properly granted. | 1 | 1 |
Queen v. D. C. Transit System, Inc.green1 sentence1993Queen v. District of Columbia Transit Sys., Inc., 364 A.2d 145, 148 (D.C.1976). | 1 | 1 |
Jeroyd W. Greene v. Howard University, a Corporation, Nathan Hare v. Howard University, a Corporationgreen2 sentences1988In its opinion granting Howard’s motion for new trial, the trial court noted that this court has said on several occasions that in construing contracts of employment in a university setting, such contracts '“comprehend as essential parts of themselves the hiring policies and practices of the University as embodied in its employment regulations and customs.’ ” Howard University v. Best, supra, 484 A.2d at 967 (quoting Greene v. Howard University, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 81, 88 , 412 F.2d 1128, 1135 (1969)). 1988In its opinion granting Howard’s motion for new trial, the trial court noted that this court has said on several occasions that in construing contracts of employment in a university setting, such contracts '“comprehend as essential parts of themselves the hiring policies and practices of the University as embodied in its employment regulations and customs.’ ” Howard University v. Best, supra, 484 A.2d at 967 (quoting Greene v. Howard University, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 81, 88 , 412 F.2d 1128, 1135 (1969)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moss v. Stockard
green
2 sentences2011We see no extrinsic evidence in or attached to Ms. Wilkins’ opposition to Howard’s motion for summary judgment that would establish express or actual malice on Howard's part, or that Howard’s statement was "so excessive, intemperate, unreasonable, and abusive as to forbid any other reasonable conclusion than that [Howard] was actuated by express malice.” Moss, supra, 580 A.2d at 1024 . 13 . 2011We see no extrinsic evidence in or attached to Ms. Wilkins’ opposition to Howard’s motion for summary judgment that would establish express or actual malice on Howard's part, or that Howard’s statement was "so excessive, intemperate, unreasonable, and abusive as to forbid any other reasonable conclusion than that [Howard] was actuated by express malice.” Moss, supra, 580 A.2d at 1024 . 13 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011Ms. Wilkins contends that “Howard’s analysis is misguided and ignores important propositions of law; [and that] the jury’s award of punitive damages should be upheld.” Whether punitive damages are “constitutionally excessive calls for the application of a constitutional standard to the facts of a particular case, and in this context de novo review ... is appropriate.” Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Grp., Inc., 532 U.S. 424, 435 , 121 S.Ct. 1678 , 149 L.Ed.2d 674 (2001) (citation omitted). 2011Ms. Wilkins contends that “Howard’s analysis is misguided and ignores important propositions of law; [and that] the jury’s award of punitive damages should be upheld.” Whether punitive damages are “constitutionally excessive calls for the application of a constitutional standard to the facts of a particular case, and in this context de novo review ... is appropriate.” Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Grp., Inc., 532 U.S. 424, 435 , 121 S.Ct. 1678 , 149 L.Ed.2d 674 (2001) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.